• WSharrodsyd

    WSharrodsyd

    @wsharrodsyd

    Viewing 15 replies - 76 through 90 (of 113 total)
    Author
    Replies
    • in reply to: Best use of drive chip #741647

      Thanks, Phil: but I was thinking of ways to take advantage of the speed of the chip, versus rotating discs.

    • in reply to: Decline & Fall of CD-Rs #727786

      Thank you for some very interesting references.
      Maxell’s headline says its 4X CD-RW has a shelf life of 30 years, but the text beneath it merely claims up to 30 years (not specifying whether unrecorded or recorded) but also that the product will achieve 1000 rewrites per sector.
      The producers’ organisation says there are standardised tests for resistance to temperature and humidity, and some manufacturers use additional tests. BUT there is no mention of testing CDs’ vulnerability to electromagnetic radiation.

    • in reply to: Decline & Fall of CD-Rs #727787

      Thank you for some very interesting references.
      Maxell’s headline says its 4X CD-RW has a shelf life of 30 years, but the text beneath it merely claims up to 30 years (not specifying whether unrecorded or recorded) but also that the product will achieve 1000 rewrites per sector.
      The producers’ organisation says there are standardised tests for resistance to temperature and humidity, and some manufacturers use additional tests. BUT there is no mention of testing CDs’ vulnerability to electromagnetic radiation.

    • in reply to: DNS buffer size #722687

      Brilliant – clever of you to know I was using Outpost. Agnitum would do well to put their identifier on the error headers.

    • in reply to: DNS buffer size #722688

      Brilliant – clever of you to know I was using Outpost. Agnitum would do well to put their identifier on the error headers.

    • in reply to: Display To & From (6.00.2800.1123) #721572

      Marvellous – thanks so much!

    • in reply to: Display To & From (6.00.2800.1123) #721573

      Marvellous – thanks so much!

    • in reply to: sluggish dialogs (98 SR2b) #719307

      Many thanks.

      I don’t know why I couldn’t find FindFast.exe myself!

      Anyway, clearly the problem lay there. With a new FindFast index, Word fills the dialogs with filenames almost as soon as the dialog frame’s drawn.

      I found the newest index in FindFast’s log was two months old. Up ’til then it must have been set at default values, and I must have switched it off by eliminating the windows startup sequence in early attempts to solve my unauthorised dial-up problem [Post: 293541 refers]. Although I haven’t created many new files since then, I did shuffle a lot of .DOCs into new subdirectories (folders) about a month ago, compelling Word to search on the fly.

      The FindFast utility seems to be very valuable and quite well thought out. You don’t have to keep the hard disk thrashing, Jscher, you can set the update interval to any reasonable number of hours you choose. I’ve now chosen 24 hours.

    • in reply to: sluggish dialogs (98 SR2b) #719308

      Many thanks.

      I don’t know why I couldn’t find FindFast.exe myself!

      Anyway, clearly the problem lay there. With a new FindFast index, Word fills the dialogs with filenames almost as soon as the dialog frame’s drawn.

      I found the newest index in FindFast’s log was two months old. Up ’til then it must have been set at default values, and I must have switched it off by eliminating the windows startup sequence in early attempts to solve my unauthorised dial-up problem [Post: 293541 refers]. Although I haven’t created many new files since then, I did shuffle a lot of .DOCs into new subdirectories (folders) about a month ago, compelling Word to search on the fly.

      The FindFast utility seems to be very valuable and quite well thought out. You don’t have to keep the hard disk thrashing, Jscher, you can set the update interval to any reasonable number of hours you choose. I’ve now chosen 24 hours.

    • in reply to: startup configuration #719222

      Thank you.
      Two clicks gets me there – I have the System Information lnk on my (fairly full ! ) taskbar.

      I want to edit the startup list because it’s more than a screen high and not sortable, so I could inadvertently checkmark (alias tick) the same item twice, and I wanted to have control of the sequence too.

      I’ll tackle McAfee’s owners, though they are hard to reach.

    • in reply to: sluggish dialogs (98 SR2b) #718013

      Thank you – this is Word 97 SR2 on Win98SE.
      I have been hunting for an executable with a name resembling FastF* but found nothing: where can FastFind be switched on and off?
      I think the sudden onset of this delay shows that fragmentation is not a major contributor to the problem. The hard drive is only half full and was defragged a couple of months ago.

    • in reply to: sluggish dialogs (98 SR2b) #718014

      Thank you – this is Word 97 SR2 on Win98SE.
      I have been hunting for an executable with a name resembling FastF* but found nothing: where can FastFind be switched on and off?
      I think the sudden onset of this delay shows that fragmentation is not a major contributor to the problem. The hard drive is only half full and was defragged a couple of months ago.

    • in reply to: Kill Startup Logo #716815

      Thank you – it took me a while to recall the usefulness of ATTRIB, but eventually I got there.

    • in reply to: Kill Startup Logo #716816

      Thank you – it took me a while to recall the usefulness of ATTRIB, but eventually I got there.

    • in reply to: who’s dialling? (6) #714547

      Thanks for introducing me to ProcessExplorer – it’s already solved a couple of little niggling questions, like, “how can I get Task Scheduler out of the Tray?”
      Now If I click twice on ProcessExplorer’s CPU column and cancel the screensaver when I leave the machine, when I hear the modem screech in the next room I should be able to go back there and see which processes are busy.

    Viewing 15 replies - 76 through 90 (of 113 total)